pinklight
2011-05-16
Now it seems to me that a clear implication of 12:21 is that the relatioship between the head, eye and hand is that while both eye and hand respond to the Head’s desire to carry out some action, though each has a separate function, yet the relationship between the eye and hand is one of cooperation and interdependency. The eye guides and aids the hand in doing the work the Head desires, but only the Head has the right to tell the hand to begin or to stop. The place of the eye is never to usurp the rule of the Head, but only to guide and aid the hand. And an eye that cannot or will not properly relate to the Head and hand is a diseased eye. Something to think about.
These are my questions, Frank. In this analogy that Paul provides, in 1 Co 12, who acts as the head, as a particular member of Christ’s body? As far as I can tell, all the members collectively are Christ’s Body therefore the head isn’t refering to Christ. Frank, are you saying that the husband or man in 1 Co 12 is only, as a member of Christ’s Body, the head? If so, I don’t see Paul dividing up the members according to male and female sex.
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more